NATO partners won't fight
Delwin @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:17 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Delwin Delwin:
Why should they fight ? Harper's got us over there doing all the dirty work. It is time for him to be assertive, and formulate an ultimatum.
You don't understand how alliances work?$1:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Do you ?
dgthe3 @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:30 pm
Do we need NATO anymore? I thought the point was to keep the Soviets from invading Germany and the rest of the west. Last time I checked, the USSR and the Red Army no longer exists as a threat and there is no other direct threat to the western powers
RUEZ @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:36 pm
Delwin Delwin:
Do you ?
YUP
Delwin @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:04 pm
RUEZ RUEZ:
Delwin Delwin:
Do you ?
YUPBecause, if you can conceed that (which I highly doubt), then you might also agree that when the conditions of an agreement are not being met, it calls for ratification or termination of that agreement.
Clogeroo @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 2:05 pm
NATO has sent soldiers. I think they lived up to it. If they don't want to move them to other areas I don't think that is against the treaty. I don't think Canada is really in a position to criticise either. Our contributions to the world have been minimal in recent years or decades I should say and our armed forces budget has been cut many times over the years. Any contribution should be welcomed and I'm appreciative of what any country has sent.
$1:
Do we need NATO anymore? I thought the point was to keep the Soviets from invading Germany and the rest of the west. Last time I checked, the USSR and the Red Army no longer exists as a threat and there is no other direct threat to the western powers
Yes that is an interesting question do we need NATO? I think the role of it is being changed. Sure it still provides protection, which is useful, but also it incorporates some of the most advanced armed forces in the world. We could always expand out of North America and Europe. I could see Australia becoming a member if they want to be. I think it is going to be used for as an offensive measure now rather than just a defence pact.
BartSimpson @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:27 pm
No problem. When Germany and/or France needs Canadians to free them again (for the nth time for crying out loud!) then just say that you're doing a fine job right where you are...wherever that may be.
Or you could simply say, "Sorry chum, we gave at Dieppe & Normandy."
Clogeroo @ Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:44 pm
$1:
No problem. When Germany and/or France needs Canadians to free them again (for the nth time for crying out loud!) then just say that you're doing a fine job right where you are...wherever that may be.
Or you could simply say, "Sorry chum, we gave at Dieppe & Normandy."
Or you could simply say, "Sorry chum, we gave at Dieppe & Normandy."
I don't think we did it to get something in return other than for them to be free. I'm not sure if Germany wanted it though.
Anwyay if they don't want to step up then Canada will just have to step up more.
LABBATTS50 @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:02 am
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
No problem. When Germany and/or France needs Canadians to free them again (for the nth time for crying out loud!) then just say that you're doing a fine job right where you are...wherever that may be.
Or you could simply say, "Sorry chum, we gave at Dieppe & Normandy."
Or you could simply say, "Sorry chum, we gave at Dieppe & Normandy."
Anwyay if they don't want to step up then Canada will just have to step up more.
So we can expect to see you at a recruiting center soon can we?
bootlegga @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:22 am
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
NATO has sent soldiers. I think they lived up to it. If they don't want to move them to other areas I don't think that is against the treaty. I don't think Canada is really in a position to criticise either. Our contributions to the world have been minimal in recent years or decades I should say and our armed forces budget has been cut many times over the years. Any contribution should be welcomed and I'm appreciative of what any country has sent.
Yes that is an interesting question do we need NATO? I think the role of it is being changed. Sure it still provides protection, which is useful, but also it incorporates some of the most advanced armed forces in the world. We could always expand out of North America and Europe. I could see Australia becoming a member if they want to be. I think it is going to be used for as an offensive measure now rather than just a defence pact.
$1:
Do we need NATO anymore? I thought the point was to keep the Soviets from invading Germany and the rest of the west. Last time I checked, the USSR and the Red Army no longer exists as a threat and there is no other direct threat to the western powers
Yes that is an interesting question do we need NATO? I think the role of it is being changed. Sure it still provides protection, which is useful, but also it incorporates some of the most advanced armed forces in the world. We could always expand out of North America and Europe. I could see Australia becoming a member if they want to be. I think it is going to be used for as an offensive measure now rather than just a defence pact.
Our defence spending in the last decade might have been lacking, but we spent BILLIONS of dollars maintaining thousands of troops and airmen in Europe for more than 40 years (some estimates were $1 billion a year in the 1970s/80s). Say what you want, but we paid our dues to NATO. Now, we're paying them again in southern Afghanistan while some Euro-pussies hide out in the north. When NATO called, we went to Europe. We didn't sit in Europe and say, well, if the Soviets do this, we'll help, otherwise, we'll just sit in our bases...
ridenrain @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:47 am
$1:
RIGA, Latvia—The most poignant moment during the NATO meetings here last week came when Afghanistan's national security adviser spoke of the debt the West owed his country. "You wouldn't be here if it weren't for us," Zalmai Rassoul told a room full of old and new Europeans. They knew what he meant. If Afghan freedom fighters hadn't upended their Red Army occupiers, who withdrew in disgrace in early 1989, the chain of events that led to the Berlin Wall's fall, Baltic liberation, and Soviet collapse may not have followed.
His appeal went further. "You abandoned us after we defeated the Soviets," he told me. "We warned you about the dangers of the Taliban, but you ignored us. You paid for that on 9/11. If you abandon Afghanistan again, you will pay again."
.....
Fix how NATO works. The alliance responds less to operational imperatives than to bureaucratic need and national sensitivities—Turks who aren't ready to shoot members of the Taliban, and Germans who, until the Riga summit, had a "caveat" on their deployment that wouldn't let them leave the relatively safe Afghan north for the more violent south. Italy and Spain have the same restrictions. NATO has insufficient intelligence capability and struggles to make quick political or acquisition decisions. One commander complained that he has been trying for years to acquire a tracking system that would protect his troops from friendly fire, because the alliance turned his need into "a 26-country industrial competition while people die on the ground."
Countries balk at their troops' use in rapid-response situations, because a lack of common funding means the countries that make physical sacrifices also foot the bill.
The fixes here can only be achieved if there is political will to provide troops without restrictions on their use, increase common funding, and, ultimately, move away from consensus decision-making to some form of majority voting that would take away veto power on NATO flexibility and effectiveness from the country that uses it most—France.
source
His appeal went further. "You abandoned us after we defeated the Soviets," he told me. "We warned you about the dangers of the Taliban, but you ignored us. You paid for that on 9/11. If you abandon Afghanistan again, you will pay again."
.....
Fix how NATO works. The alliance responds less to operational imperatives than to bureaucratic need and national sensitivities—Turks who aren't ready to shoot members of the Taliban, and Germans who, until the Riga summit, had a "caveat" on their deployment that wouldn't let them leave the relatively safe Afghan north for the more violent south. Italy and Spain have the same restrictions. NATO has insufficient intelligence capability and struggles to make quick political or acquisition decisions. One commander complained that he has been trying for years to acquire a tracking system that would protect his troops from friendly fire, because the alliance turned his need into "a 26-country industrial competition while people die on the ground."
Countries balk at their troops' use in rapid-response situations, because a lack of common funding means the countries that make physical sacrifices also foot the bill.
The fixes here can only be achieved if there is political will to provide troops without restrictions on their use, increase common funding, and, ultimately, move away from consensus decision-making to some form of majority voting that would take away veto power on NATO flexibility and effectiveness from the country that uses it most—France.
I say we finish the job at hand then Canada needs to re-evaluate our ties to disfunctional groups like the UN & NATO. The Soviet supermen have gone away and our presence in Europe is unnessesary.
Clogeroo @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:26 pm
$1:
Our defence spending in the last decade might have been lacking, but we spent BILLIONS of dollars maintaining thousands of troops and airmen in Europe for more than 40 years (some estimates were $1 billion a year in the 1970s/80s). Say what you want, but we paid our dues to NATO. Now, we're paying them again in southern Afghanistan while some Euro-pussies hide out in the north. When NATO called, we went to Europe. We didn't sit in Europe and say, well, if the Soviets do this, we'll help, otherwise, we'll just sit in our bases...
We had one brigade in Germany through the 1980's with some tanks, which are still in service.
Some of the time we had cadets even serve in it. Actually we haven’t done a whole lot since Korea as far as I'm concerned until now. We sent minimal forces or put a little bit in a few peacekeeping missions but other than that nothing extraordinary. Also if you want to jump on other NATO countries we have been riding on the United States defence for years so I wouldn’t talk. If Canada needs more forces in Afghanistan we should look to ourselves by expanding them or sending reserves. The Dutch have almost as many forces as Canada and are in southern Afghanistan along with British and American forces. If others don’t want to contribute in this theatre they don’t have too but we should strengthen our own presence there.
EyeBrock @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:34 pm
bootlegga bootlegga:
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
NATO has sent soldiers. I think they lived up to it. If they don't want to move them to other areas I don't think that is against the treaty. I don't think Canada is really in a position to criticise either. Our contributions to the world have been minimal in recent years or decades I should say and our armed forces budget has been cut many times over the years. Any contribution should be welcomed and I'm appreciative of what any country has sent.
Yes that is an interesting question do we need NATO? I think the role of it is being changed. Sure it still provides protection, which is useful, but also it incorporates some of the most advanced armed forces in the world. We could always expand out of North America and Europe. I could see Australia becoming a member if they want to be. I think it is going to be used for as an offensive measure now rather than just a defence pact.
$1:
Do we need NATO anymore? I thought the point was to keep the Soviets from invading Germany and the rest of the west. Last time I checked, the USSR and the Red Army no longer exists as a threat and there is no other direct threat to the western powers
Yes that is an interesting question do we need NATO? I think the role of it is being changed. Sure it still provides protection, which is useful, but also it incorporates some of the most advanced armed forces in the world. We could always expand out of North America and Europe. I could see Australia becoming a member if they want to be. I think it is going to be used for as an offensive measure now rather than just a defence pact.
Our defence spending in the last decade might have been lacking, but we spent BILLIONS of dollars maintaining thousands of troops and airmen in Europe for more than 40 years (some estimates were $1 billion a year in the 1970s/80s). Say what you want, but we paid our dues to NATO. Now, we're paying them again in southern Afghanistan while some Euro-pussies hide out in the north. When NATO called, we went to Europe. We didn't sit in Europe and say, well, if the Soviets do this, we'll help, otherwise, we'll just sit in our bases...
While agree with most that has been said Canada has been pretty devoid of involvement in NATO since it pulled what was left of it's Brigade out of Germany in 1992.
The warmuseum.ca:
In 1970, after nineteen years with the British Army of the Rhine in northern Germany, Canada's brigade group moved south from several bases around Soest to Lahr, a small town in the Black Forest region of southwestern Germany. Renamed the 4th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group in 1968, defence cuts had reduced the formation to less than 3,000 troops by the early 1970s. Canada's air force commitment, now just three squadrons instead of the earlier twelve, concentrated at nearby Baden-Soellingen. At a time when NATO doctrine placed increasing emphasis on the need for robust conventional forces, unhappy allies complained bitterly that Canada was not pulling its weight. Despite the purchase of new weapon systems like the Leopard C1 main battle tank and McDonnell Douglas CF-18 Hornet fighter-bomber in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Trudeau's tenure had left Canada's NATO commitment at a low ebb.
Mulroney did little to enhance our international image and cut the CF even more. The Chretien Liberals were even worse.
Couple that with our own caveats that were placed on CF troops during Gulf War 1, restrictions that saw Canada do very little fighting in the Gulf War, and you can understand why the Europeans have a point.
Obviously recently we have changed course and the CF has taken a more robust role. I watched the CDS on tv talk about these very issues. We are being taken more seriously in NATO because of the 'Stan but we have done very little for a long time. We shouldn't be suprised at some of the reactions of the Europeans.
Funny that it's the English speaking western world that is taking on the real combat role here eh?
"Welcome back Canada" is what the Brits are saying.
LABBATTS50 @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:37 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
Our defence spending in the last decade might have been lacking, but we spent BILLIONS of dollars maintaining thousands of troops and airmen in Europe for more than 40 years (some estimates were $1 billion a year in the 1970s/80s). Say what you want, but we paid our dues to NATO. Now, we're paying them again in southern Afghanistan while some Euro-pussies hide out in the north. When NATO called, we went to Europe. We didn't sit in Europe and say, well, if the Soviets do this, we'll help, otherwise, we'll just sit in our bases...
We had one brigade in Germany through the 1980's with some tanks, which are still in service.
Some of the time we had cadets even serve in it. Actually we haven’t done a whole lot since Korea as far as I'm concerned until now. We sent minimal forces or put a little bit in a few peacekeeping missions but other than that nothing extraordinary. Also if you want to jump on other NATO countries we have been riding on the United States defence for years so I wouldn’t talk. If Canada needs more forces in Afghanistan we should look to ourselves by expanding them or sending reserves. The Dutch have almost as many forces as Canada and are in southern Afghanistan along with British and American forces. If others don’t want to contribute in this theatre they don’t have too but we should strengthen our own presence there.Great that you have support for the CF, but you have no clue of what you speak, don't take it negatively. Unfortunately I forget a past thread on a similar subject where you were WAY out in left field in regards to current troop numbers, you did however take it admirably when the "facts" were explained to you by people who know.
Some quick facts for you from one of many on here who has not been sitting on his hands as you imply since Korea
Since 1992, more than 40,000 Canadians have served in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Operation HARMONY (February 1992–December 1995):
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF)
Operation PALLADIUM (December 1995–December 2004):
NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
Twenty-five Canadians lost their lives while serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In all its missions to Egypt, Canada's main contribution was logistical in nature, providing services like transportation, communication, supply and health support for the UN forces.
At times, the total size of the UN peace forces in Egypt was upwards of 7,000 troops drawn from 20 countries. More than 150 UN troops died in their peace efforts for Egypt, including more than 50 Canadians. This was the largest loss of life in any single Canadian peace effort.
Just to name a few. Far from not doing a whole lot. Could you also please show me a source for when we deployed Cadets in Tanks while we were in Germany?
.
Clogeroo @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:36 pm
$1:
Great that you have support for the CF, but you have no clue of what you speak, don't take it negatively. Unfortunately I forget a past thread on a similar subject where you were WAY out in left field in regards to current troop numbers, you did however take it admirably when the "facts" were explained to you by people who know.
Some quick facts for you from one of many on here who has not been sitting on his hands as you imply since Korea
Since 1992, more than 40,000 Canadians have served in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Operation HARMONY (February 1992–December 1995):
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF)
Operation PALLADIUM (December 1995–December 2004):
NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
Twenty-five Canadians lost their lives while serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In all its missions to Egypt, Canada's main contribution was logistical in nature, providing services like transportation, communication, supply and health support for the UN forces.
At times, the total size of the UN peace forces in Egypt was upwards of 7,000 troops drawn from 20 countries. More than 150 UN troops died in their peace efforts for Egypt, including more than 50 Canadians. This was the largest loss of life in any single Canadian peace effort.
Just to name a few. Far from not doing a whole lot. Could you also please show me a source for when we deployed Cadets in Tanks while we were in Germany?
.
Some quick facts for you from one of many on here who has not been sitting on his hands as you imply since Korea
Since 1992, more than 40,000 Canadians have served in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Operation HARMONY (February 1992–December 1995):
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF)
Operation PALLADIUM (December 1995–December 2004):
NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
Twenty-five Canadians lost their lives while serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In all its missions to Egypt, Canada's main contribution was logistical in nature, providing services like transportation, communication, supply and health support for the UN forces.
At times, the total size of the UN peace forces in Egypt was upwards of 7,000 troops drawn from 20 countries. More than 150 UN troops died in their peace efforts for Egypt, including more than 50 Canadians. This was the largest loss of life in any single Canadian peace effort.
Just to name a few. Far from not doing a whole lot. Could you also please show me a source for when we deployed Cadets in Tanks while we were in Germany?
.
Source it is on wikipedia I was reading if that counts. In any case these deployments are not all at once they are just troop rotations. If you want to go by that logic other countries have had a lot more served as well. Considering in Afghanistan this is the first time since Korea we had an airdrop for support or even used these tanks in a combat situation says a lot.
LABBATTS50 @ Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:37 pm
Clogeroo Clogeroo:
$1:
Great that you have support for the CF, but you have no clue of what you speak, don't take it negatively. Unfortunately I forget a past thread on a similar subject where you were WAY out in left field in regards to current troop numbers, you did however take it admirably when the "facts" were explained to you by people who know.
Some quick facts for you from one of many on here who has not been sitting on his hands as you imply since Korea
Since 1992, more than 40,000 Canadians have served in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Operation HARMONY (February 1992–December 1995):
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF)
Operation PALLADIUM (December 1995–December 2004):
NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
Twenty-five Canadians lost their lives while serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In all its missions to Egypt, Canada's main contribution was logistical in nature, providing services like transportation, communication, supply and health support for the UN forces.
At times, the total size of the UN peace forces in Egypt was upwards of 7,000 troops drawn from 20 countries. More than 150 UN troops died in their peace efforts for Egypt, including more than 50 Canadians. This was the largest loss of life in any single Canadian peace effort.
Just to name a few. Far from not doing a whole lot. Could you also please show me a source for when we deployed Cadets in Tanks while we were in Germany?
.
Some quick facts for you from one of many on here who has not been sitting on his hands as you imply since Korea
Since 1992, more than 40,000 Canadians have served in Bosnia-Herzegovina:
Operation HARMONY (February 1992–December 1995):
United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR)
United Nations Peace Forces (UNPF)
Operation PALLADIUM (December 1995–December 2004):
NATO Implementation Force (IFOR)
NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR)
Twenty-five Canadians lost their lives while serving in Bosnia-Herzegovina
In all its missions to Egypt, Canada's main contribution was logistical in nature, providing services like transportation, communication, supply and health support for the UN forces.
At times, the total size of the UN peace forces in Egypt was upwards of 7,000 troops drawn from 20 countries. More than 150 UN troops died in their peace efforts for Egypt, including more than 50 Canadians. This was the largest loss of life in any single Canadian peace effort.
Just to name a few. Far from not doing a whole lot. Could you also please show me a source for when we deployed Cadets in Tanks while we were in Germany?
.
Source it is on wikipedia I was reading if that counts. In any case these deployments are not all at once they are just troop rotations. If you want to go by that logic other countries have had a lot more served as well. Considering in Afghanistan this is the first time since Korea we had an airdrop for support or even used these tanks in a combat situation says a lot.
Well please feel free to tell us of Combat that France and Germany have been in since the 50's?